WASHINGTON (CNN) — Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo's campaign stood by his assertion that bombing holy Muslim sites would serve as a good "deterrent" to prevent Islamic fundamentalists from attacking the United States, his spokeswoman said Friday.

"This shows that we mean business," said Bay Buchanan, a senior Tancredo adviser. "There's no more effective deterrent than that. But he is open-minded and willing to embrace other options. This is just a means to deter them from attacking us."

On Tuesday, Tancredo warned a group of Iowans that another terrorist attack would "cause a worldwide economic collapse." IowaPolitics.com recorded his comments.

"If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina," Tancredo said. "That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong, fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent, or you will find an attack."

What can I say, eye for an eye might be the only thing that has a chance of working. It would have to be a pretty serious attack though, in order for that kind of action not to be an escalation.

Except that we're not fighting the "republic of terror" and Mecca is not a city in the "repulic of terror". We're fighting a group of radicals without state nationality that do not represent millions of muslims who consider those sites holy.

That would be some sort of unfair collective punishment to hand down to an innocent group of people...

I don't know about the whole war on terror thing. First, terror is a tactic. Second, there are state sponsors, it is just that we in the West pussy foot around the whole thing. Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are the big financiers, trainers, and exporters of terror worldwide.

As for bombing their holy sites, I suppose it is an option, but the more I think about it, the more I question what it accomplishes? It would probably be better to bomb a revolutionary guard barracks in Iran, or something like that. Something that would destabilize one of the un-mentioned state sponsors of the stateless terror.

I have thought a lot about fighting terrorists, and I invariably come to the conclusion that the only way they could be decisively beaten is if we became them. Every act of depravity was doubled by us type of thing. We would have to spill enough blood, in such a way that they forever give up the notion that we can ever be beaten by such tactics. But then, who really wins? On the other hand, there is Ireland. They beat the IRA by battling to a perpetual state of stalemate (not by negotiating). Eventually, the IRA signaled that the war was over. I don't know if stalemate is possible with stateless actors though.

What can I say, eye for an eye might be the only thing that has a chance of working. It would have to be a pretty serious attack though, in order for that kind of action not to be an escalation.

Except that we're not fighting the "republic of terror" and Mecca is not a city in the "repulic of terror". We're fighting a group of radicals without state nationality that do not represent millions of muslims who consider those sites holy.

That would be some sort of unfair collective punishment to hand down to an innocent group of people...

I don't think it's a good idea either. How many Muslims wanted to attack us prior to 9/11 (and prior to the Iraq invasion)? A small percentage? If we bomb their holy sites, how many Muslims will want to attack us then? Probably a heck of a lot more...

I don't know why he said it, but my thought is that he's making a play for the ultra-religious right in the primaries. It's safe to say crazy things like that right now because of the distance from the presidential election... not that it matters. Tancredo won't secure the nomination, and no one's likely to choose him as a running mate either.

If you attack the holy sites you would just give radicals more influence the avg muslim would be swayed to take drastic actio. I can't even believe people are saying these type of things it would lead to so much violence it is really a scary thought.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou can attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum